Using the Power of the Government to Win Elections

The principle that government ought to serve all citizens, not just one political party, forms the bedrock of America's democratic system. However, the Trump administration demonstrated a disregard for this fundamental concept. It viewed the federal government not as a steward for all Americans, but as a tool—an instrument it could manipulate to safeguard its political dominance.

In the past, it was unheard of for federal secretaries to attend political rallies. Yet, under the Trump administration, this norm was broken. Officials such as the Secretary of Defense, Homeland Security, and Attorney General were willing to use the government's power to help Republicans in the upcoming elections. They campaigned for Republican candidates from the pulpit, influenced broadcast news, and even attempted to manipulate the U.S. Postal Service's handling of mail-in ballots.

They threatened to withhold FEMA relief funds from states that did not elect Republican candidates and released pro-Trump propaganda funded by taxpayer money. The most reprehensible act was offering $5,000 checks to voters if Republicans won.

These actions were not only in a legal gray area but were outright violations of the Hatch Act, a law passed in 1939 to ensure that government employees remain above partisan political activities. The law mandates that federal employees may not use their official authority to influence an election, though they can engage in political activity when off-duty.

However, in the Trump administration, the Hatch Act seemed to be selectively enforced against regular federal employees, while the Attorney General and other high-ranking officials engaged in partisan campaigning without repercussions.

Not even the Office of Special Counsel, tasked with enforcing the Hatch Act, seemed to be a deterrent. The OSC's leader was fired early in Trump's second term, and his replacement was a far-right podcaster with questionable credentials. Despite this, the OSC managed to launch an investigation against Trump's former Special Counsel, Jack Smith, over his comment about speeding up criminal trials for Trump.

Meanwhile, the Federal Communications Commission, under Trump's chairman, perfected the use of its authority to threaten broadcasters it perceived as anti-Trump, effectively undermining the traditional neutrality of the FCC by favoring pro-Trump content.